Re: ZFS in Buster

Ian Jackson writes: >> > Would it be possible to provide an alternative patched linux kernel >> > that works with ZFS? > > I think this would be both unwise legally (without seeking additional > legal advice) and rather rude to the kernel upstream whose code is > then being reused without permissio

Re: Why do we take so long to realise good ideas (Was: Difficult Packaging Practices)

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 08:43:55AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > IMHO this touches another burning topic: Its not that we do not want to > provide some PPA equivalent - its just that we do not realise it. I do > not remember how many years ago we talked about bikesheds (and > obviously we even fo

Why do we take so long to realise good ideas (Was: Difficult Packaging Practices)

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 07:54:20AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > As an example, Ubuntu makes it easy to add side-loaded channels (ppas). > we don't. IMHO this touches another burning topic: Its not that we do not want to provide some PPA equivalent - its just that we do not realise it. I do not re

Re: Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or Recommend DH; comments by 2019-06-16

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 08:42:26AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Does that paper you talk about point to _causes_ Debian packaging being > more scary? Is it a) complexities related to hardening, cross-building, > bootstrapping etc. or b) lack of a single¹ unified build framework, or > c) t

Re: @debian.org mail

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:19:37PM +0200, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote: > Forwarding mail from @debian.org to my mailbox makes me apply > complicated filters to stay subscribed to ML I wish. Why? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 21:20:50 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository > format"): > > xorg-team (e.g. mesa) > > = > > > > Tree contains: upstream files from a git tag (not identical to the > > upstream `make dist`

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes: Ian> If folks think it worthwhile I guess I could post to d-d-a, but Ian> let's let it run here for a bit first. I don't have an opinion on whether you should post to d-d-a. I know I'll reference this in my upcoming bits from the DPL because discussion

Re: ZFS in Buster

Hi Ian and Jonathan, On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:26 PM Ian Jackson wrote: > > I think this would be both unwise legally (without seeking additional > legal advice) and rather rude to the kernel upstream whose code is > then being reused without permission - indeed, contrary to their > explicitly s

@debian.org mail

Hi, Forwarding mail from @debian.org to my mailbox makes me apply complicated filters to stay subscribed to ML I wish. Do you confirm me it is really not wanted to pull mails from a Debian machine via POP? I really would love to separat ma Debian box fromothers. Tell me if I should ask to ano

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

Hi, thanks for replying. You have an interesting workflow which I think I need to ask some questions about before I can document it fully. Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format"): > I'm always cloning the upstream repo, branch off at th

Re: ZFS in Buster

Jonathan Carter writes ("Re: ZFS in Buster"): > On 2019/05/28 18:43, Dan wrote: > > ZFS 0.8 has been released with lots of improvements, notably encryption. > > Yep, it's an exciting feature. > > > Sadly the Linux Kernel has introduced a commit in kernel 4.19 and 5.0 > > that prevents ZFS from us

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format"): > xorg-team (e.g. mesa) > = > > Tree contains: upstream files from a git tag (not identical to the > upstream `make dist` tarball), sometimes with extra commits cherry-picked > Changes to upstre

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format"): > On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 16:51:10 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Unmodified debian/patches gbp, gbp pq > > upstream files,(only)quilt / dquilt > > plus debian/*

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

On 28.05.19 17:51, Ian Jackson wrote:> While trying to write the dgit FAQ, and some of the relevant docs, it > has become even more painfully obvious that we lack a good handle on > what all the different ways are that people use git to do their Debian > packaging, and what people call these format

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

Ian Jackson writes ("Survey: git packaging practices / repository format"): > While trying to write the dgit FAQ, and some of the relevant docs, it > has become even more painfully obvious that we lack a good handle on > what all the different ways are that people use git to do their Debian > packa

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format"): > Dear Ian, > > Can you please look through the table below and see if I have covered > > everything you do ? > > > > In particular: > > - have I missed a git repository and history layout > > - have I missed a primar

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

Thanks for this work. I've reviewed your table and believe everything I've used is there. I think this survey is really important.

Re: Difficult Packaging Practices

Vincent Bernat: > ❦ 28 mai 2019 06:30 +00, Niels Thykier : > >> I.e. with the proper implementation of "make-it-work" (in the lack of a >> better name - maybe something "fetch-and-build"), the following should >> be possible >> >> """ >> #!/usr/bin/make -f >> >> # DISTRIBUTION = $(shell sed -n "s

Re: ZFS in Buster

Hi Dan On 2019/05/28 18:43, Dan wrote: > ZFS 0.8 has been released with lots of improvements, notably encryption. Yep, it's an exciting feature. > Sadly the Linux Kernel has introduced a commit in kernel 4.19 and 5.0 > that prevents ZFS from using SIMD. The result is that ZFS won't be > usable i

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 16:51:10 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Unmodified debian/patches gbp, gbp pq > upstream files,(only)quilt / dquilt > plus debian/* Manual patch editing > incl. d/patches Do you intend "manual patc

ZFS in Buster

Dear Debian developers, ZFS 0.8 has been released with lots of improvements, notably encryption. Sadly the Linux Kernel has introduced a commit in kernel 4.19 and 5.0 that prevents ZFS from using SIMD. The result is that ZFS won't be usable in Buster. See the following issue https://github.com/zf

Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

Dear Ian, > Can you please look through the table below and see if I have covered > everything you do ? > > In particular: > - have I missed a git repository and history layout > - have I missed a primary tool that should be mentioned > - are any of the details wrong for workflows that you use

Survey: git packaging practices / repository format

While trying to write the dgit FAQ, and some of the relevant docs, it has become even more painfully obvious that we lack a good handle on what all the different ways are that people use git to do their Debian packaging, and what people call these formats/workflows, and what tools they use. Can yo

Re: Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or Recommend DH; comments by 2019-06-16

> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes: Ian> Firstly, I want to say that I think this is an awesome way to Ian> conduct this discussion/decisionmaking/whatever. Thank you. Thanks. I'm really hoping it does end up working well and that we can train many people to do it. Ian> Sam Hartman

Re: Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or Recommend DH; comments by 2019-06-16

Firstly, I want to say that I think this is an awesome way to conduct this discussion/decisionmaking/whatever. Thank you. Sam Hartman writes ("Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or Recommend DH; comments by 2019-06-16"): > Recommendation > == > > There are some exceptions where

Re: error messages of failing maintainer scripts

Ralf Treinen writes ("error messages of failing maintainer scripts"): > do we require that a maintainer script that exits with an error gives > a useful error message? I couldn't find anything about this in policy, > but I think that we should require, or at least recommend, useful error > messages

Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH

Quoting Guillem Jover (2019-05-28 12:46:34) > [dh] has proper documentation compared to cdbs which does not, which > I think is the main reason I always found cdbs unappealing as you > need to read its source code making its entire implementation its > interface. Another common technica

Re: Some questions about DD status and salsa

Paul, On 28.05.19 10:37, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:12 PM Ulrike Uhlig wrote: >> /* I remember that the existence and usage of >>https://db.debian.org/ is not well documented for new project >>members. >> */ > > The second paragraph of t

error messages of failing maintainer scripts

Hi, do we require that a maintainer script that exits with an error gives a useful error message? I couldn't find anything about this in policy, but I think that we should require, or at least recommend, useful error messages. A concrete example that we found in our current project about analyzin

Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH

On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 08:33:44 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to > recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred build > system. So, here's my take on this. I do use debhelper everywhere, I also use dh mostly at work, and

Simplified Debianization Process (was: Re: Difficult Packaging Practices (OT)

Hi Thomas, On 2019-05-28 07:48, Thomas Dettbarn wrote: > Debian was quite more complicated, and the documentation on that > topic was scattered all over the interwebs. Here I had to download > the sources, rename the directories, rename the package, repackage, > change some files, count the numbe

RE:Difficult Packaging Practices (OT)

> This thread reminded me the Debian User Repository thread: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/04/msg00064.html > Such a repository can be a "easy" packaging zone, possibly attracting > more contributing people. Eventually some people will try to improve the > packages and get them int

Re: Some questions about DD status and salsa

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:12 PM Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > - is a Salsa account created automatically for every DD? This includes > non-uploading DDs. Yes. > how does one recover the password? I expect the normal gitlab password reset works, I haven't tested it though. > /* I reme

Re: Difficult Packaging Practices (OT)

On 5/28/19 9:48 AM, Thomas Dettbarn wrote: > Hello. > > > This is slightly off-topic, and I have not been on this mailinglist > since this thread started. Nevertheless, I would like to express my > support for changing the packaging practices. > > Over the last two weeks, I tried creating ports

Re: Some questions about DD status and salsa

Hi Jonathan, On 28.05.19 07:53, Jonathan Carter wrote: > On 2019/05/28 01:05, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote: >> I am happy with being now a non-uploading DD. And I dont know where to >> ask, sorry for the noise. >> >> For non-uploading DD, is a salsa account created? I tried to auth with >> it, but

Re: Some questions about DD status and salsa

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:05:39AM +0200, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote: > I am happy with being now a non-uploading DD. Welcome on board. > And I dont know where to > ask, sorry for the noise. On Salsa, every page, including the login page, have a lin

Re: Difficult Packaging Practices (OT)

Hello. This is slightly off-topic, and I have not been on this mailinglist since this thread started. Nevertheless, I would like to express my support for changing the packaging practices. Over the last two weeks, I tried creating ports and packages for my project "dMagnetic". It was rather easy

Re: Difficult Packaging Practices

❦ 28 mai 2019 06:50 +00, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel : >> packages. While my Perl is a bit rusty, I can propose some "dh_fetch" >> helper for this if there is no huge opposition against this approach. > > why not a dh_uscan ? > > what is the fundamental difference between dh_fetch and what you can >

Re: Some questions about DD status and salsa

Logo Hypra JEAN-PHILIPPE MENGUAL DIRECTEUR TECHNIQUE ET QUALITÉ 102, rue des poissonniers, 75018, Paris Tel : +331 84 73 06 61 Mob : +336 76 34 93 37 jpmeng...@hypra.fr www.hypra.fr Facebook Hypra

Re: Some questions about DD status and salsa

MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote: > For non-uploading DD, is a salsa account created? I tried to auth > with it, but not possible, then to reset the passwd, but I dont > rceive mail to do it on @debian.org. Typos were made in the Debian LDAP data of another recently accepted Debian member and that was

RE:Difficult Packaging Practices

[...] > packages. While my Perl is a bit rusty, I can propose some "dh_fetch" > helper for this if there is no huge opposition against this approach. why not a dh_uscan ? what is the fundamental difference between dh_fetch and what you can achieve by using uscan from the rules file ? Cheers Fr